Fr. Anthony and I talked about the Christians role in the political arena. I will not go into all of the details here but you can give it a listen from his website or over at iTunes. If you like it, leave him some feedback.
In an interview with CNSNews Hume says there is a double standard when it comes to speaking about Christianity versus other religions. “There is a double standard. If I had said, for example, that what Tiger Woods needed to do was become more deeply engaged in his Buddhist faith or to adopt the ideas of Hinduism, which I think would be of great spiritual value to him, I doubt anybody would have said anything.”
To quote from the article, CNSNews.com asked Hume: “Why is Jesus Christ taboo in polite conversation or in the world of politics and media?”
“I think it’s been true for a long time in many cultures. It is certainly true in secular America today that the most controversial two words you can ever utter in a public space are ‘Jesus Christ,’” Hume said.
When asked to speculate about the reasons for the mainstream media’s vitriolic reception of Christianity, Hume initially expressed bewilderment
“I’m somewhat at a loss to explain it because so many of the people who purport to be aghast at such mentions are themselves at least nominally Christian. But there it is,” Hume said.
He added: “I think it is true that for people who are not Christian, Christianity makes a fairly extravagant claim which is that the Son of God — God made Flesh — came into this world, lived, suffered terribly, and died for the remission of our sins, and then rose again. This is a huge supernatural event, and a lot of people don’t—have a lot of trouble believing it. But if you do purport to believe it, the implications are pretty staggering. And the result is you may end up talking about it,” Hume said.
Hume also ventured possible practical reasons for the public’s searing distaste for Christianity.
“There is certainly a level of anti-Christian bigotry that may have something to do with the fact that on certain issues, the views of Christians are against theirs on certain matters such as abortion and others, but I can’t account for all of it. It is a striking reality, however,” Hume concluded.
I will say this, Brit Hume spoke the truth on the show and the world cannot take the truth. Jesus Christ is the way the truth and light! That’s the bottom line. Mr. Hume spoke his faith and I give him a lot of credit for doing it. I also think it was the appropriate place. The show is a political commentary show not breaking news. If he was an anchor of the morning news then it would be appropriate for him to comment on the story as he did, but he was asked for his opinion, hey ask me my opinion and might have said the same thing, I wish I would have said it first!
I have never really been a fan of Fox News, in fact in these pages I often refer to it as Faux News but I am starting to change my opinion. Who knows I might become a Fox News Convert!
So the question I have for you today, dear readers, does it matter if the President of the United States attends church or not?
The article speaks about how the President used the Christian Community during the campaign but has not attended church on a regular basis since his election. A candidate used someone? Should we be surprised by this? The other question I have is would you, if you are a clergy person reading this, want POTUS to come to your church, I for one would not. I would not want to be subjected to the media, the secret service, and circus atmosphere that is involved wherever POTUS goes. People come to church to worship and I would not want that interrupted by some clown with a camera.
I do not know the stats on the Bush attendance at church whilst in the White House but I have never before seen interests in weather the first family attends church or not.
The article lists several things that shows that this POTUS is less Christian perhaps then we have seen before. Does this bother me, not really. How does the faith of one person affect me? I think we need to come to the reality that one day we might have a President who is wait for it… not a Christian.
Why is religion so attached to the Oval Office? Should it be?
What think you?
From time to time another blogger will link to this blog and that drives traffic as well. One such blogger is Mike St. Pierre at The Daily Saint. In a recent post he has this to say about these pages, “Coolest Orthodox priest worth following: Fr. Peter-Michael Preble”
WOW, thanks Mike for reading and for the shout out!
BTW I am now a follower of Mike on Twitter and I have his feed in my Google Reader
St. Theophan the Recluse, also known as “Theophan Zatvornik” or “Theophanes the Recluse” (Russian: Феофан Затворник), (1815–1894) is a well-known saint in the Russian Orthodox Church. He was born George Vasilievich Govorov, in the village of Chernavsk. His father was a Russian Orthodox priest. He was educated in the seminaries at Livny, Orel and Kiev. In 1841 he was ordained, became a monk, and adopted the name Theophan. He later became the Bishop of Tambov.
He is especially well-known today through the many books he wrote concerning the spiritual life, especially on the subjects of the Christian life and the training of youth in the faith. He also played an important role in translating the Philokalia from Church Slavonic into Russian. The Philokalia is a classic of orthodox spirituality, composed of the collected works of a number of church fathers which were edited and placed in a four volume set in the 17th and 18th centuries. A persistent theme is developing an interior life of continuous prayer, learning to “pray without ceasing” as St. Paul teaches in his first letter to the Thessalonians.
Mr. Hume says this to Tiger Woods, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world”
First let me say that I applaud Mr. Hume for preaching! Tiger Woods claims to be a Buddhist and what Mr. Hume was speak about was the redemptive aspect of Christianity. Well I hope that’s what he was talking about. However being a Christian alone doe snot mean one does not sin.
In today’s Boston Globe there appeared this editorial dealing with what Mr. Hume had to say. I will quote just one line, “Christianity and other major religions provide solid ethical frameworks, but that’s not enough. Whether one is Christian, Muslim, or Zoroastrian, staying faithful to one’s spouse is a test of character, not faith.” I agree with the author of this editorial. It is not faith alone that keeps us on the right track it is our character, something that I think is lacking in this world today.
What are your thoughts?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgMr_Zc3OtA]
Green Valley, Wisconsin
Columbus, Ohio
Dallas, Texas
Mississauga, Ontario
Westport, Massachusetts
Southborough, Massachusetts
Southbridge, Massachusetts
Newark, New Jersey
South Burlington, Vermont
Plymouth, Massachusetts
Lubbock, Texas
Oakland, California
Columbus, Ohio
Uxbridge, Massachusetts
Spinnerstown, Pennsylvania
Petaling Jaya, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
Bellevue, Washington
Las Vegas, Nevada
New York
Wilmington, Delaware
Fort Mill, South Carolina
Duvall, Washington
Fall River, Massachusetts
Arkadelphia, Arkansas
Canton, Michigan
Woodstock, Connecticut
Worcester, Massachusetts
Prescott, Arizona
Fairfield, Ohio
Bentonville, Arkansas
Quincy, Massachusetts
Belmont, Massachusetts
Kenton, Ohio
Madrid, Spain
Chester, South Carolina
Washington, District of Columbia
San Francisco, California
South Berwick, Maine
Mountain View, California
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Winchester, Massachusetts
United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Dubayy
Gunzenhausen, Bayern, Germany
Seabrook, Texas
Portland, Oregon
New Zealand
Mountain View, California
Elmira, New York
Salt Lake City, Utah
Seattle, Washington
Winchester, Massachusetts
Baia Mare, Maramures, Romania
Los Angeles, California
Coventry, Connecticut
Maple Park, Illinois
Farmington, Minnesota
Oakland, California
United Kingdom
New Hyde Park, New York
Jakarta, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Euclid, Ohio
We had a small group in church Sunday because of a Snow Storm here in New England. I preached on making resolutions and how to keep to them.
I endorsed Scott Brown, the Republican, because his issues on life are within the teachings of the Orthodox Church of which I am a priest. He took issue because the church is not supposed to do this. Well when I write on this blog I no more represent my church then does anyone who blogs represent who they work for. Why are clergy not able to have opinions without people screaming church and state and want to remove our tax exempt status. Here is the quote from the blog:
Church blogs should remain politically neutral. Since a local priest has used his blog to endorse the Republican candidate for the open Massachusetts U. S. Senate seat, the church should forfeit its tax-free status. The blog not only contains the political views of the church’s spiritual leader, but it also contains sermons and Bible readings. If such pairings on the internet do not violate any church’s right to a tax-free status, then the law needs updating.
So I responded with this comment:
Great post as always and as the former morning host on WESO I agree that they have nothing to do with Webster or Southbridge anymore. As the name of the company the owns the station says Money Matters.I am also the local priest that endorsed a candiate on his blog and one correction needs to be made. My blog is just that mine. It is not a church no more than your blog belongs to any of the papers you write for. Yes I am a priest and yes I am a citizien and in a free society have a right to write about my thoughts and feelings, I wonder if I had endorsed the Democrate would I have made your list. I have not, nor would I ever, speak from the pulpit about a candidate but I will talk about my churches position on social issues and let the people make their own decision.Thanks for your blog I like your writings and I look forward to what you have to day. I don’t always agree but I like your thoughts and style. Keep up the good work.
A reader, someone who in anonymous. I find this interesting since in another place in the same post that he calls me out he rails against anonymous posts as not being courageous yet he allows them:
Father Peter, with all due respect, I’m not buying your ‘Blog is Mine” statement. Oh, I’ve not doubt that it is yours, but does everybody know that? You seemingly represent your church – even though you say you’d never endorse a candidate from the pulpit. Come on, let’s get real here. If you speak of and endorse certain “acceptable” social issues from your pulpit, then that’s basically the same thing as endorsing the candidates who agree with your positions. Quite frankly, you’re splitting hairs. I agree with Brent. If your church wants the luxury of a no-tax status, then you should be barred from doing this. I’d ask, why not just pay taxes like everyone else, and then you can speak about and endorse anything you please? Also, I’ve read most of Brent’s blogs, have you? If so, you’d realize that he certainly doesn’t endorse every Democrat that comes down the pike, nor every position they take, and I feel confident in saying that he’d feel exactly the same way no matter which side of the aisle you endorse. (I added the bold type)
So A Reader believes that I should not be able to teach from the pulpit what my church teaches on certain social issues. This is exactly the mindset that led the founding fathers to put the establishment clause in the Constitution to begin with. The clause was not protect the state from religion but the very opposite, to protect the church from the state!
Let me say at this point that I like the give and take this is what a free society is all about being able to air ones opinions on issues. I thank Mr. Abrahamson for posting this so we could have this discussion. I need to meet him one day and have coffee I think I would like him. But I digress…
So the comments continue:
Thanks for commenting. I do appreciate your position, but I believe one statement that you made suggests an underlying mindset:I wonder if I had endorsed the Democrate[sic] would I have made your list.My opinions on the proper separation of Church and State do not change depending on the candidate endorsed. That suggestion is both dismissive and, frankly, insulting.I fully support your right as an individual to express your thoughts and feelings. The inclusion of church teachings and dogma and your identification as a priest of the particular denomination certainly must be considered connected. When specific endorsement of a candidate is included among matters of spirituality and the personal viewpoints of a religious leader who does frequently make reference to his Denomination at large, I believe that violates at least the spirit of the rules regarding churches and a tax-exempt status.As for my blog or my column in a newspaper, it is clearly my opinion. I don’t claim to speak for any organization, so I don’t think the parallel you have tried to draw fits.In my opinion, when churches want to enter into partisan politics, they should reject any largesse from the State.Thanks again for your input.
To which I responded:
To A Reader,Thanks for your comments and I have a question. So I am not supposed to teach what my church teaches on social issues? How about people who advocate for homeless issues and run non profits should they loose their status as well or are churches the only ones that are not allowed to speak?Brent, I do not speak for any organization on my blog other than my own. I teach my my church teaches on the issues and I ask the same question are churches the only ones not allowed to speak on issues? Can Schools and teachers speak or do they run the risk of loosing their tax exempt status as well?
And he responded:
Well, Fr. Peter, you can keep making the straw man argument. Speaking out on issues and endorsing a specific candidate for public office are not the same thing. The schools and teachers analogy is hardly legitimate. Clergy can speak out all they want. If the church wants special consideration from the State, then there are restrictions.
And my follow up:
Okay, so let me ask the question in another way. If the Executive Director of the Southbridge Interfaith Hospitality Network talk about homeless issues or endorses a candidate because they are good on homeless issues should SIHN loose their tax status? Or if the head of the American Red Cross does, or a college president or any member or head of any tax exempt organization speak out should they loose their status or is it just churches that cannot speak?
If you wish to check the comments you can at the end of the article I did not edit them in anyway other than using the bold on the one statement above.
So I ask all of you who read this the same questions. Can other people who head not for profit organizations endorse candidates on their blogs? If so should they have their tax status revoked? When someone blogs do they represent the companies they work for or is this distinction just left to the clergy? Comments are open.
On this New Year’s Eve we are all called to say prayers to God and thank Him for the well, He has bestowed on us in 2009 and ask His help to improve our lives with the good deeds of the Faith in the New Year 2010. Let’s pray for the Romanians living beyond the country’s borders, who are happy when they feel the love and praise of those at home.
Let’s nurture the gift of national unity and peace among people. Let’s be diligent and merciful, and help the people around us. I wish you all peace, good health and happiness and may Lord help you in the New Year, Patriarch Daniel concluded his New Year Address.